2023 IL App (4th) 230865-U 

NO. 4-23-0865 

IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

STEVEN D. WALKER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

)

) 

)

)

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of

Henry County 

No. 23CF292 

Honorable 

Colby G. Hathaway, 

Judge Presiding.

 

 JUSTICE LANNERD delivered the judgment of the court. 

 Presiding Justice DeArmond and Justice Knecht concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant pretrial release.

¶ 2 On September 21, 2023, the Henry County circuit court entered an order detaining 

defendant, Steven D. Walker, pursuant to the dangerousness standard found in section 110-6.1 of 

the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Procedure Code) as amended by Public Acts 101-652, 

§ 10-255 and 102-1104, § 70 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023) (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (West 2022)), commonly 

known as the Pretrial Fairness Act. Defendant appeals, arguing this court should overturn the 

circuit court’s decision because (1) the State failed to prove he poses a real and present threat to 

the safety of any person or persons or the community and (2) the court erred in determining no 

condition or combination of conditions would reasonably ensure his appearance for a later hearing 

or prevent him from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor. We affirm 

the circuit court’s decision denying defendant pretrial release. 

NOTICE

This Order was filed under 

Supreme Court Rule 23 and is 

not precedent except in the 

limited circumstances allowed 

under Rule 23(e)(1). 

FILED

November 29, 2023

Carla Bender

4th District Appellate

Court, IL
- 2 -

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On September 20, 2023, the State charged defendant by information with violation 

of an order of protection (720 ILCS 5/12-3.4(a)(1) (West 2022)) and driving while license revoked 

(625 ILCS 5/6-303(a), (d-3) (West 2022)). According to the charging instrument, defendant was 

served with an order of protection in Henry County case No. 23-OP-152, under which H.P. was a 

protected party, and then knowingly violated the order of protection by having contact with H.P. 

The information also alleged defendant had previously been convicted of domestic battery in 

Henry County case No. 11-CM-513. 

¶ 5 The State filed a verified petition to deny defendant pretrial release on September 

20, 2023. The State indicated defendant was charged with violating an order of protection and his 

pretrial release posed a real and present threat to the safety of a person or persons or the community 

(725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(3) (West 2022)). The State’s petition provided the following factual basis 

to support detaining defendant. A police officer conducting a traffic stop identified defendant as 

the driver of the vehicle he stopped and H.P. as a passenger. Defendant was driving the vehicle on 

a revoked driver’s license, which he had done on at least four prior occasions. According to the 

State’s petition, when the order of protection was served on defendant, defendant said he would 

have his sister “beat up” H.P. when the order of protection expired. 

¶ 6 At the detention hearing on September 20, 2023, the State provided the circuit court 

with information consistent with the verified petition to deny defendant pretrial release. In 

addition, the State indicated defendant had a pending battery charge in Henry County and a 2018 

conviction for aggravated battery in a public place. The State argued the information before the 

court showed defendant was not concerned with the law and would not comply with the law. The 

State also indicated it was concerned defendant would not appear at upcoming court dates because 
- 3 -

he did not have a driver’s license.

¶ 7 In addition, according to the State’s proffer, when the arresting officer stopped 

defendant for the traffic violation, defendant failed to correctly identify himself, did not comply 

with the officer’s commands, and exhibited furtive movements throughout the stop. After the 

officer removed defendant from the vehicle, defendant put his hand behind his back and began 

reaching toward his waistline until the officer “went hands-on with him and told him to stop.” The 

officer later identified H.P. as the passenger in the vehicle. After confirming defendant’s identity, 

the officer confirmed that defendant’s driver’s license was revoked. The State also indicated 

defendant had been served with the order of protection on September 7, 2023.

¶ 8 Defense counsel argued defendant had reliable transportation from his “Grandma 

Annie” and the Henry County public transportation system to get to court. Further, defense counsel 

noted defendant’s sister had not harmed H.P. and was not an immediate threat to her. According 

to defense counsel, if the court established conditions requiring defendant to not have contact with 

H.P., the court could mitigate any threat defendant posed to H.P. Defense counsel also argued 

defendant was not with H.P. but was just driving H.P.’s car. Finally, defense counsel argued the 

State had not proffered any evidence H.P. had been harmed at any time.

¶ 9 The circuit court indicated it had considered the proffered evidence, the pretrial 

investigation report, defendant’s criminal history, and defendant’s score of “8” out of 14 on the 

Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment. The court also noted defendant had been found with H.P., who 

was the protected party in the active order of protection. In addition, the court noted defendant had 

a history of violence, including prior convictions for domestic battery and attempt aggravated 

battery. Defendant was also out on bond for a battery charge. With regard to possible conditions it 

could impose on defendant to mitigate his dangerous behavior, the court stated the condition it 
- 4 -

would like to impose, which would be to require defendant not to have contact with H.P., would 

be futile based on defendant’s history. As a result, the court found the risk to H.P. could not be 

mitigated by conditions imposed on defendant. 

¶ 10 In the circuit court’s written order, it found the State charged defendant with a 

detention-eligible offense and the proof was evident or the presumption great that defendant had 

committed the detention-eligible offense. The court also found the State presented clear and 

convincing evidence defendant posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person or 

persons or the community based on the specific articulable facts of this case and no condition or 

combination of conditions could mitigate the real and present threat defendant’s release would 

cause. Pursuant to section 110-6.1(h)(1) of the Procedure Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1) (West 

2022)), the court found less restrictive conditions could not assure H.P.’s safety because of 

defendant’s history of disregarding court orders. As additional reasons for denying defendant 

pretrial release, the court pointed to defendant’s prior convictions for violent offenses, a pending 

battery charge, and his significant criminal record.

¶ 11 On September 22, 2023, defense counsel filed a timely notice of appeal pursuant to 

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(2) (eff. Sep. 18, 2023). The circuit court appointed the Office 

of the State Appellate Defender (OSAD) to represent defendant on appeal.

¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 13 According to defendant’s amended notice of appeal, the State failed to meet its 

burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that defendant posed a real and present threat 

to the safety of any person or persons or the community based on the facts in this case. According 

to defendant:

“The Defendant was served a short-form notice of the [order of protection 
- 5 -

] on 9/7/2023. At which time he stated he would have his sister ‘beat up’ the object 

of the OP when the OP was over. Defendant was pulled over while driving the 

vehicle of the object of the OP in a location not near either of their residences. At 

the time of the stop and arrest there was no indication that any harm had come to 

the object of the OP. At no point between the issuance of the OP and the present 

has the Defendant’s sister approached or caused harm to the object of the OP.”

¶ 14 Defendant also argued the circuit court erred by determining no condition or 

combination of conditions would reasonably ensure defendant’s appearance for later court 

hearings or prevent him from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor. 

Defendant’s explanation as to how the circuit court erred is limited to the following sentence: 

“Defendant would be subject to incarceration if he were to violate the OP or a pre-trial release 

condition.” 

¶ 15 On October 20, 2023, OSAD filed a notice with this court indicating it was not 

filing a Rule 604(h) memorandum. As a result, we examine the arguments presented in defendant’s 

amended notice of appeal. 

¶ 16 When reviewing a circuit court’s pretrial detention decision, we apply an abuse of 

discretion standard of review. People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11. A circuit court 

abuses its discretion when its decision is “arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable, or where no 

reasonable person would agree with the position adopted by the [circuit] court.” (Internal quotation 

marks omitted.) Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 10. 

¶ 17 Based on the facts in this case, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying defendant pretrial release. Defendant ignores the proffered fact he was with H.P. when he

was arrested in this case after having been served with an order of protection for H.P. Based on 
- 6 -

defendant’s history of violence and the fact one of his current charges was for violating an order 

of protection, defendant’s arguments the circuit court abused its discretion by denying defendant 

pretrial release because he was not a threat and because the court could have imposed conditions 

to mitigate the threat are meritless.

¶ 18 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 19 For the reasons stated, we affirm the Henry County circuit court’s judgment and 

remand the case for further proceedings. 

¶ 20 Affirmed; cause remanded.